Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2011.12.1.195

The Diversity in an English Oral Proficiency Test  

Park, Chung-Yeol (Owens International College, Korea Nazarene University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society / v.12, no.1, 2011 , pp. 195-199 More about this Journal
Abstract
There are many causes for the variation of the result in oral proficiency test such as the examiner, the task, the theme of the interview, and the gender of the participants. Previous literature documents that the rater is an important variable influencing test scores of second language oral proficiency. Although much research in language testing has been conducted concerning rater effect on test scores, there has been little attention paid to the effect of potential rater variables in language testing on their rating process. There are noticeably different contents of the rating scales across different speaking tests developed in different context. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply the same rating criteria for various tasks. In conclusion, we need more subject protocol analyses and more thoughtful studies on rating processes. In other words, the oral proficiency test needs a more realistic and valid tool for the assessment of second language proficiency.
Keywords
Raters; Test-takers; Rating Scales; Validity;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 McNamara, T. F., Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
2 O'Loughlin, K., The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing. Language Testing, 19(2), pp.169-192, 2002.   DOI
3 O'Sullivan, B., Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance, Language Testing, 19, pp.277-275, 2002.   DOI
4 Ross, S., Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews, Language Testing, pp.173-186, 1992.
5 Shohamy, E., The stability of oral proficiency assessment on the oral interview testing procedures. Language Learning, 33, pp.527-540, 1983.   DOI
6 Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E., Systematic effects in the rating of second language speaking ability: test method and learner discourse. Language Testing, 16(1), pp.82-111, 1999.   DOI
7 Young, R. & Milanovic, M., Discourse variation in oral proficiency interview., Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, pp.403-424, 1992.   DOI
8 Wigglesworth, G., An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, pp.85-106, 1997.   DOI
9 Brown, A., Iwashita N., & McNamara, T., An Examination of Rater Orientations and Test-Taker Performance on English-for-Academic-Purposes Speaking Tasks, TOEFL Monograph Series, 29, Educational Testing Service, 2005.
10 Chalhoub-Deville, M., Deriving oral assessment scales across different tests and rater groups. Language Testing, 12, pp.16-33, 1995.   DOI
11 Chalhoub-Deville, M., Task-based assessments: Characteristics and validity evidence. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited, pp.210-228, 2001.
12 Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I., Second Language Fluency: Judgments on Different Tasks, Language Testing, 54(4), pp. 655-679, 2004.
13 Douglas, D., Quantity and quality in speaking test performance. Language Testing. 11, pp.125-143, 1994.   DOI
14 Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. F., Rater characteristics and rater bias: Implications for training. Language Testing, 12(1), pp.54-71, 1995.   DOI
15 Douglas, D., & Selinker, L., Analyzing oral proficiency test performance in general and specific purpose contexts. System 20, pp.317-328, 1992.   DOI
16 Joo, M., The need for an alternative Approach to Oral Testing. The English Teachers Association in Korea, 14(1), pp.1-20, 2008.
17 Lumley, T., Perceptions of language-trained raters and occupational experts in a test of occupational English language proficiency. English for Specific Purposes 17(4), pp.347-367, 1998.   DOI
18 Lynch, B. K., & McNamara, T. F., Using G-theory and many-facet Rasch measurement in the development of performance assessments of the ESL speaking skills of immigrants. Language Testing 15(2), pp.158-180, 1998.   DOI
19 Bachman, L. F., Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
20 Bachman, L. F., Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), pp.149-164, 1988.   DOI
21 Bachman, L. F., Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), pp.452-47, 2002.
22 Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S., Language testing practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
23 Bachman, L. F., & Savignon, S. J., The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL Oral Interview. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), pp.380-390, 1986.   DOI
24 Bonk, W. J. & Ockey, G. J., A Many-Facet Rasch Analysis of the Second Language Group Oral Discussion Task. Language Testing 20(1), pp.89-110, 2003.   DOI
25 Brown, A., The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation-specific language performance test. Language Testing, 12(1), pp.1-15, 1995.   DOI